Hanuman Prasad Sharma Vs J. Mithyleshwar (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the trial court’s order which had returned the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 CPC on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. The dispute arose from a civil suit filed for recovery of ₹10 lakhs, where the plaintiff claimed that the loan was advanced through a bank account in Delhi and that the cheque issued for repayment was also presented and dishonoured in Delhi.
The respondent/defendant later filed an application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC seeking return of the plaint, contending that no cause of action arose within Delhi and that the transaction was connected to Karnataka. The trial court allowed this application. However, it was noted that the defendant had not raised any objection to territorial jurisdiction in the written statement, which was filed earlier, nor was any issue framed on this aspect at the stage of settlement of issues.
The High Court examined the legal position under Section 21 of the CPC and relevant judicial precedents. It observed that objections to territorial jurisdiction must be raised at the earliest opportunity and, in any case, before the framing of issues. Failure to do so results in waiver of such objections. The Court distinguished territorial jurisdiction from subject-matter jurisdiction, clarifying that while defects in subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be cured by consent or waiver, objections to territorial jurisdiction can be waived.
